Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Neural Responses to Affective Sentences Reveal Signatures of Depression

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that EEG responses to self-referential affective sentences carry reproducible signatures of depression, with a deep-learning classifier reaching AUC 0.707 for healthy versus depressed participants and 0.624 for depressed…

desk verdict A credible task-based EEG depression classification study with strong controls; the headline CV-split worry is mostly answered by Algorithm 1, but the paper still needs clearer folding disclosure and is best read as a careful proof-of-concept, not a clinical tool. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06244 v1 pith:SNHMNJFF submitted 2025-06-06 cs.LG eess.SP

Aditya Kommineni , Woojae Jeong , Kleanthis Avramidis , Colin McDaniel , Myzelle Hughes , Thomas McGee , Elsi Kaiser , Kristina Lerman
show 8 more authors
Idan A. Blank Dani Byrd Assal Habibi B. Rael Cahn Sudarsana Kadiri Takfarinas Medani Richard M. Leahy Shrikanth Narayanan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SP
keywords Majordepressivedisordersuicidalideationelectroencephalography(EEG)self-referentialprocessingaffectivesentencemultivariatepatternanalysisdeeplearningclassificationevent-relatedpotentials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the brain's response to self-referential affective sentences can serve as an objective neural marker of depression, and reports group-level evidence that it can. Using 64-channel surface EEG recorded while 146 young adults read sentences one word at a time and then pressed agree or disagree, the authors find that healthy and depressed participants separate in multivariate decoding starting around 544 ms after the final word, and earlier when positive and negative sentence responses are contrasted. A deep-learning classifier fed bootstrapped trial averages reaches an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.707 for healthy versus depressed participants and 0.624 for depressed participants with versus without suicidal ideation. The strongest separability comes from subtracting negative from positive sentiment trials, and spatial ablations point to anterior electrodes. If the participant-level split assumption is clean, the paradigm offers a scalable, low-cost complement to self-report screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the conjunction of a one-word-at-a-time self-referential sentence paradigm with subject-level bootstrapped EEG epochs and a contrast-based classifier. Each trial is epoched from 200 ms before to 900 ms after the final critical word, baseline corrected by z-scoring on the pre-stimulus window, and then B=20 single trials are sampled with replacement and averaged N=200 times per subject to make stable pseudo-trials; these feed a two-convolution-layer, two-transformer-layer network with sinusoidal positional encoding. For the time-resolved decoding, per-subject ERPs for each sentence grouping are passed at each 10 ms time step to an L1-regularized logistic regression in a leave-one-subject-out scheme, and cluster-based permutation testing identifies windows where AUC exceeds chance. The crucial design choice is contrast subtraction: positive minus negative sentence sentiment, agree minus disagree, and slow minus fast response time produce the inputs with the highest separability, and reveal much of the signal's spatial focus in anterior electrodes.

What would settle it

Run the classifier with an explicit participant-disjoint five-fold cross-validation, keeping all trials from each participant in exactly one fold, and compare the resulting AUC with the reported values; if the healthy-versus-depressed AUC falls to near 0.5, the central claim fails because the original numbers were inflated by within-subject leakage. A complementary check is a label-permutation null distribution over subjects to confirm that AUC 0.707 sits outside the permutation range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal dynamics of EEG responses to affective self-referential sentences contain reproducible signatures of depression, not just task behavior. In a between-subject multivariate pattern analysis, healthy controls and depressed participants (with or without suicidal ideation) are decodable from the averaged response to all sentences in a late window from roughly 544 ms to 900 ms after the onset of the final critical word, which the authors associate with semantic integration and decision making; contrasting positive minus negative sentence ERPs shifts decodability earlier, to 256-657 ms, with importance concentrated in anterior midline electrodes tied to emotional processing. The deep-learning results extend this from time-resolved decoding to full spatiotemporal classification: a transformer-based model trained on bootstrapped subject-level trials achieves AUC 0.707 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) for controls versus the combined depressed groups under the sentence-sentiment contrast, and AUC 0.624 for depressed non-suicidal versus depressed suicidal under the response-time contrast. The paper further claims that a model trained only on controls versus non-suicidal depressed assigns a mean depressed probability of 0.61 to the held-out suicidal group, suggesting that the neural signature generalizes across depression subgroups.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the five-fold cross-validation keeps all trials from each participant in a single fold; the paper does not state this explicitly, and if trials from the same person appear in both training and test sets, within-subject correlation could inflate the reported AUC.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A shortened screening protocol remains viable: the response-type model keeps performance with up to 75% of a new participant's trials removed at test time.
  • Training data can be small: sentence-sentiment models keep stable AUC when up to 75% of depressed participants are removed from training, easing collection in clinical settings.
  • EEG predictions track symptom severity: model depression probabilities correlate more strongly with same-day PHQ-9 scores than with screening-time scores.
  • Depression-subtype labels may not be required: models trained on one depressed subgroup transfer to the other, with held-out suicidal participants still receiving elevated depressed probabilities.
  • Anterior electrodes contain much of the discriminative information, suggesting future studies could use a reduced electrode montage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A likely next step left implicit by the paper is to combine the EEG contrast signal with the behavioral agree or disagree profile, which the paper reports reaches near-ceiling AUC; the neural model adds value precisely where self-report is unreliable.
  • The paper's opposite sentiment effects for healthy-versus-depressed versus suicidal-versus-non-suicidal classification suggest a testable hypothesis: sentence sentiment may separate symptom dimensions rather than diagnostic labels.
  • If the participant-level split assumption is confirmed, the natural replication is a shortened anterior-channel version of the task on an independent cohort, using only the early contrast window from 256 ms to 657 ms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether EEG responses to self-referential affective sentences contain information about depression status and suicidal ideation. It reports group-level temporal decoding results using MVPA, deep learning classification results (AUC 0.707 for healthy vs. depressed, AUC 0.624 for depressed non-suicidal vs. suicidal under specific trial groupings), spatial/temporal ablations, subgroup generalization analyses, and correlations with questionnaire scores. The central claims are that stimulus-driven neural signatures of depression are present in the EEG and that a deep learning model can exploit them for classification. The methods involve PHQ-9/SIS-based grouping, a sentence-response task with 160 sentences, EEG preprocessing, bootstrapped trial generation, and five-fold cross-validated transformer-based classifiers.

Significance. If the classification results are valid, this is a worthwhile contribution to EEG-based depression screening and to understanding the temporal dynamics of self-referential affective processing. The study has several strengths: subject-level bootstrapped classification, permutation-based significance testing for the decoding analyses, confidence intervals for AUCs, a behavioral-confound control (EEG does not predict agree/disagree), and ablation experiments for trials, bootstrap parameters, and training-set composition. The main caveat is that the validity of the headline AUCs depends critically on the cross-validation splitting participants rather than trials; the manuscript strongly implies this but does not state it explicitly, and the data/code are not publicly available. There is also a direct inconsistency in the reported number of participants that must be resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.6, Algorithm 1] The central generalization claim depends on the five-fold cross-validation partitioning participants, but §4.6 only states 'a five-fold cross validation stratified for gender' and does not explicitly say that all trials of a test participant are excluded from training. Algorithm 1's 'training subjects'/'test subjects' wording strongly suggests a subject-level split, and the bootstrap procedure operates within subject; nevertheless, because single-trial EEG is strongly subject-correlated, a trial-level or within-subject split would inflate the reported AUCs in Table 1. Please state the fold-construction rule explicitly and, ideally, provide code or a subject-disjoint fold index in the supplement so that the reader can verify that no trial from a test subject appears in training.
  2. [§4.2 vs §4.3, Table 2] There is a direct numerical inconsistency in participant counts. Section 4.2 excludes 13+1 participants from 160, leaving 146, and Table 2 lists 49+47+50=146. Section 4.3 then states that 6 participants with extremely noisy EEG were excluded from the analysis, which would imply a final sample of 140. Please clarify whether the 6 noisy participants are excluded before Table 2, whether Table 2 reports the pre-EEG-quality sample, and whether all reported analyses use 146 or 140 participants; if 140, update group sizes, demographics, and all related text and figures.
  3. [§4.7, Table 1] The statistical significance reported in Table 1 for the deep-learning AUCs is attributed to permutation tests, but the Methods section describes only bootstrap confidence intervals from resampling predictions. The permutation test procedure for the deep-learning AUCs should be specified (e.g., how the null distribution is generated, whether participants are permuted, and how multiple comparisons across conditions are handled). Without this, the p-value annotations are not verifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.6] The deep-learning architecture is described as '2 convolution layers and 2 vanilla transformer layers,' but the text does not give the number of channels, kernel sizes, embedding dimensions, number of heads, or training epochs; these should be reported or the code should be made public.
  2. [Data/Code Availability] The statement that data and code are 'available upon request' is not sufficient for a machine-learning classification paper whose central result depends on exact CV and bootstrap details; please provide an open repository or a detailed supplementary protocol.
  3. [§3, behavioral baseline] The behavioral classifier (AUC 0.94 for CvsD,S and 0.88 for DvsS) is described only in the Discussion, with no method description or table. Since it is used to argue that EEG captures information beyond behavior, please describe its input features, training, and evaluation procedure.
  4. [§4.3] The sentence in 'EEG data corresponding to 6 participants was found to be extremely noisy and was excluded from the analysis' should specify whether these 6 are counted in the Table 2 demographics or removed before all analyses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central classification claims are empirical, evaluated on held-out participants against independently acquired PHQ-9/SIS labels.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are empirical classification results rather than analytical derivations. The deep-learning AUCs in Table 1 are produced from EEG inputs with group labels defined by PHQ-9 and SIS thresholds in Section 4.2; these clinical labels are external to the EEG features, so the reported separability is not built into the input by construction. The MVPA decoding is run in a Leave-One-Subject-Out Cross-Validation setting across random seeds (Sections 2.1 and 4.5), and Algorithm 1 defines train/test subjects and computes a subject-level probability, indicating that subject-level evaluation was intended. The five-fold deep-learning split is described only as 'stratified for gender' in Section 4.6; if that split is not subject-disjoint, the reported AUCs could be inflated by within-subject leakage, but that is a validity risk, not a definitional circularity. The contrasting-condition results are compared against a random-contrasting baseline in Table 1, which controls for the possibility that subtracting positive and negative ERP groups mechanically creates discriminability. The PHQ-9 correlation passage explicitly acknowledges that an across-group positive correlation is expected because the groups are defined by the questionnaire, and it does not present that correlation as a prediction. The only self-citation is the Brainstorm preprocessing toolbox [51], which is a standard implementation tool and does not supply any load-bearing assumption, uniqueness claim, or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, imported-uniqueness, or ansatz-smuggling loop is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are questionnaire-based group labels, EEG preprocessing validity, and subject-disjoint cross-validation.

free parameters (3)
  • Bootstrap samples per subject N = 200
    Manual choice; Appendix B.1 shows stable AUC from 100 to 1000 samples.
  • Trials averaged per bootstrap B = 20
    Manual choice; AUC improved from B=5 to 20 and declined at 40.
  • Deep learning hyperparameters = lr=1e-5, batch 512, 2 conv layers, 2 transformer layers
    Given in Section 4.6 without reported sensitivity analysis for architecture width or depth.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PHQ-9 and SIS thresholds map to depression and suicidal ideation groups.
    Table 2 and Section 4.2 define C, D, and S by questionnaire cutoffs (PHQ-9 <=4 or >=10, SIS <=16 or >16), not by clinical interviews.
  • domain assumption Artifact rejection with ASR and ICA removes non-neural differences without removing group-relevant signal.
    Section 4.3 relies on manual ICA component rejection and ASR parameters; if depression-related artifacts differ systematically, they could drive the classifier.
  • domain assumption Deep learning cross-validation is split by subject.
    Algorithm 1 tests whole subjects, but Section 4.6 states only five-fold CV stratified for gender; trial-level folds would inflate AUC through within-subject correlation.
  • standard math Cluster-based permutation testing controls temporal multiple comparisons within each decoding condition.
    Section 4.7 uses sign-flipping and cluster thresholds (p<=0.01, cluster size>40 ms); this assumes exchangeability under the null.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Responses to Affective Sentences Reveal Signatures of Depression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNHMNJFF

@misc{pith2026250606244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Responses to Affective Sentences Reveal Signatures of Depression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNHMNJFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06244}
}
read the original abstract

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent mental health condition, and a deeper understanding of its neurocognitive foundations is essential for identifying how core functions such as emotional and self-referential processing are affected. We investigate how depression alters the temporal dynamics of emotional processing by measuring neural responses to self-referential affective sentences using surface electroencephalography (EEG) in healthy and depressed individuals. Our results reveal significant group-level differences in neural activity during sentence viewing, suggesting disrupted integration of emotional and self-referential information in depression. Deep learning model trained on these responses achieves an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.707 in distinguishing healthy from depressed participants, and 0.624 in differentiating depressed subgroups with and without suicidal ideation. Spatial ablations highlight anterior electrodes associated with semantic and affective processing as key contributors. These findings suggest stable, stimulus-driven neural signatures of depression that may inform future diagnostic tools.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Other common mental disorders: global health estimates.Geneva: World Health Organization24(2017)

    Depression, W. Other common mental disorders: global health estimates.Geneva: World Health Organization24(2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    D.et al.Trends in us depression prevalence from 2015 to 2020: the widening treatment gap.American Journal of Preventive Medicine63, 726–733 (2022)

    Goodwin, R. D.et al.Trends in us depression prevalence from 2015 to 2020: the widening treatment gap.American Journal of Preventive Medicine63, 726–733 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L. & Williams, J. B. The phq-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.Journal of general internal medicine16, 606–613 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    T., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J

    Beck, A. T., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. & Erbauch, J.Beck depression inventory (BDI)(1961)

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    A rating scale for depression.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry23, 56 (1960)

    Hamilton, M. A rating scale for depression.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry23, 56 (1960). 20

    work page 1960

  6. [6]

    L., Munk-Olsen, T., Eaton, W

    Musliner, K. L., Munk-Olsen, T., Eaton, W. W. & Zandi, P. P. Heterogeneity in long-term trajectories of depressive symptoms: Patterns, predictors and outcomes. Journal of affective disorders192, 199–211 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Buch, A. M. & Liston, C. Dissecting diagnostic heterogeneity in depression by integrating neuroimaging and genetics.Neuropsychopharmacology46, 156–175 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    G.et al.Fronto-cingulate effective connectivity in major depression: a study with fmri and dynamic causal modeling.Neuroimage43, 645–655 (2008)

    Schl¨ osser, R. G.et al.Fronto-cingulate effective connectivity in major depression: a study with fmri and dynamic causal modeling.Neuroimage43, 645–655 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    S., Felder, J

    Dichter, G. S., Felder, J. N. & Smoski, M. J. Affective context interferes with cognitive control in unipolar depression: an fmri investigation.Journal of affective disorders114, 131–142 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    F., Hickie, I

    Wang, L., Hermens, D. F., Hickie, I. B. & Lagopoulos, J. A systematic review of resting-state functional-mri studies in major depression.Journal of affective disorders142, 6–12 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Pilmeyer, J.et al.Functional mri in major depressive disorder: A review of findings, limitations, and future prospects.Journal of Neuroimaging32, 582–595 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    C., Maggioni, E., Delvecchio, G

    Piani, M. C., Maggioni, E., Delvecchio, G. & Brambilla, P. Sustained attention alterations in major depressive disorder: a review of fmri studies employing go/no- go and cpt tasks.Journal of affective disorders303, 98–113 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Mohammadi, S.et al.Brain-based sex differences in depression: a systematic review of neuroimaging studies.Brain imaging and behavior17, 541–569 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    J.et al.Sparse network-based models for patient classification using fmri.Neuroimage105, 493–506 (2015)

    Rosa, M. J.et al.Sparse network-based models for patient classification using fmri.Neuroimage105, 493–506 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Ramasubbu, R.et al.Accuracy of automated classification of major depressive disorder as a function of symptom severity.NeuroImage: Clinical12, 320–331 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Gallo, S.et al.Functional connectivity signatures of major depressive disorder: machine learning analysis of two multicenter neuroimaging studies.Molecular Psychiatry28, 3013–3022 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    de Aguiar Neto, F. S. & Rosa, J. L. G. Depression biomarkers using non-invasive eeg: A review.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews105, 83–93 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    E., Geraci, J., Harmsen, I

    Simmatis, L., Russo, E. E., Geraci, J., Harmsen, I. E. & Samuel, N. Techni- cal and clinical considerations for electroencephalography-based biomarkers for major depressive disorder.Npj Mental Health Research2, 18 (2023). 21

    2023

  11. [19]

    C., Thome, J., Berger, C., Foley, P

    Koo, P. C., Thome, J., Berger, C., Foley, P. & Hoeppner, J. Current source density analysis of resting state eeg in depression: a review.Journal of Neural Transmission124, 109–118 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    & Pav´ on, J

    ˇCuki´ c, M., L´ opez, V. & Pav´ on, J. Classification of depression through resting- state electroencephalogram as a novel practice in psychiatry.Journal of medical Internet research22, e19548 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Sharma, V

    Pelosi, L., Slade, T., Blumhardt, L. & Sharma, V. Working memory dysfunction in major depression: an event-related potential study.Clinical neurophysiology 111, 1531–1543 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    A.et al.Upper alpha activity during working memory processing reflects abnormal inhibition in major depression.Journal of affective disorders 127, 191–198 (2010)

    Segrave, R. A.et al.Upper alpha activity during working memory processing reflects abnormal inhibition in major depression.Journal of affective disorders 127, 191–198 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Galkin, S.et al.Impairments to the functions of spatial working memory in mild depression and their neurophysiological correlates.Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology50, 825–829 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Keren, H.et al.Reward processing in depression: a conceptual and meta-analytic review across fmri and eeg studies.American Journal of Psychiatry175, 1111– 1120 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Guan, C

    Jiang, C., Li, Y., Tang, Y. & Guan, C. Enhancing eeg-based classification of depression patients using spatial information.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering29, 566–575 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    & Dannlowski, U

    Stuhrmann, A., Suslow, T. & Dannlowski, U. Facial emotion processing in major depression: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings.Biology of mood & anxiety disorders1, 1–17 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Carballedo, A.et al.Functional connectivity of emotional processing in depression.Journal of affective disorders134, 272–279 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    & Harmer, C

    Godlewska, B., Browning, M., Norbury, R., Cowen, P. & Harmer, C. J. Early changes in emotional processing as a marker of clinical response to ssri treatment in depression.Translational psychiatry6, e957–e957 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    & Wang, J

    Li, X. & Wang, J. Abnormal neural activities in adults and youths with major depressive disorder during emotional processing: a meta-analysis.Brain imaging and behavior15, 1134–1154 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    S., Wenzlaff, R

    Rude, S. S., Wenzlaff, R. M., Gibbs, B., Vane, J. & Whitney, T. Negative pro- cessing biases predict subsequent depressive symptoms.Cognition & Emotion 16, 423–440 (2002). 22

    2002

  23. [31]

    Y., Deldin, P

    Shestyuk, A. Y., Deldin, P. J., Brand, J. E. & Deveney, C. M. Reduced sustained brain activity during processing of positive emotional stimuli in major depression. Biological psychiatry57, 1089–1096 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Iakimova, G.et al.Behavioral measures and event-related potentials reveal dif- ferent aspects of sentence processing and comprehension in patients with major depression.Journal of Affective Disorders113, 188–194 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Klumpp, H.et al.Semantic processing of emotional words in depression and schizophrenia.International journal of Psychophysiology75, 211–215 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Kiang, M.et al.Abnormal self-schema in semantic memory in major depressive disorder: evidence from event-related brain potentials.Biological psychology126, 41–47 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Shestyuk, A. Y. & Deldin, P. J. Automatic and strategic representation of the self in major depression: trait and state abnormalities.American Journal of Psychiatry167, 536–544 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    P., Stanton, C

    Auerbach, R. P., Stanton, C. H., Proudfit, G. H. & Pizzagalli, D. A. Self- referential processing in depressed adolescents: A high-density event-related potential study.Journal of abnormal psychology124, 233 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    M.et al.Increased neural sensitivity to self-relevant stimuli in major depressive disorder.Psychophysiology56, e13345 (2019)

    Benau, E. M.et al.Increased neural sensitivity to self-relevant stimuli in major depressive disorder.Psychophysiology56, e13345 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Haxby, J. V. Multivariate pattern analysis of fmri: the early beginnings. Neuroimage62, 852–855 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Cichy, R. M. & Pantazis, D. Multivariate pattern analysis of meg and eeg: A comparison of representational structure in time and space.NeuroImage158, 441–454 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    & Freedman, D

    Zhou, Y. & Freedman, D. J. Posterior parietal cortex plays a causal role in perceptual and categorical decisions.Science365, 180–185 (2019). URL https: //www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw8347

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Desai, R

    Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W. & Conant, L. L. Where is the seman- tic system? a critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies.Cerebral cortex19, 2767–2796 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    URL https://dx

    Valdebenito-Oyarzo, G.et al.The parietal cortex has a causal role in ambiguity computations in humans.PLOS Biology22, e3002452 (2024). URL https://dx. plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002452

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Gold, J. I. & Shadlen, M. N. The neural basis of decision making.Annu. Rev. Neurosci.30, 535–574 (2007). 23

    2007

  36. [44]

    & Luka, B

    Van Petten, C. & Luka, B. J. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and erp components.International journal of psychophysiology83, 176–190 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    A., Quante, L

    DeLong, K. A., Quante, L. & Kutas, M. Predictability, plausibility, and two late erp positivities during written sentence comprehension.Neuropsychologia61, 150–162 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Rudd, M. D. The prevalence of suicidal ideation among college students.Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior19, 173–183 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    The gad-7 questionnaire.Occupational medicine64, 224–224 (2014)

    Williams, N. The gad-7 questionnaire.Occupational medicine64, 224–224 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Citron, F. M. Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: a review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies.Brain and language122, 211–226 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Friederici, A. D. The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function.Physiological reviews91, 1357–1392 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    D., Rentfrow, P

    Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann Jr, W. B. A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains.Journal of Research in personality37, 504–528 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    C., Pantazis, D

    Tadel, F., Baillet, S., Mosher, J. C., Pantazis, D. & Leahy, R. M. Brainstorm: A user-friendly application for meg/eeg analysis.Computational intelligence and neuroscience2011, 879716 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    & Makeig, S

    Delorme, A. & Makeig, S. Eeglab: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial eeg dynamics including independent component analysis.Journal of neuroscience methods134, 9–21 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    & Schoffelen, J.-M

    Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E. & Schoffelen, J.-M. Fieldtrip: open source software for advanced analysis of meg, eeg, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational intelligence and neuroscience2011, 156869 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    R.et al.Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry eeg.IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering62, 2553–2567 (2015)

    Mullen, T. R.et al.Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry eeg.IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering62, 2553–2567 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    & Sejnowski, T

    Makeig, S., Bell, A., Jung, T.-P. & Sejnowski, T. J. Independent component anal- ysis of electroencephalographic data.Advances in neural information processing systems8(1995)

    1995

  48. [56]

    J., Granholm, E., Ingram, R

    Siegle, G. J., Granholm, E., Ingram, R. E. & Matt, G. E. Pupillary and reac- tion time measures of sustained processing of negative information in depression. Biological psychiatry49, 624–636 (2001). 24

    2001

  49. [57]

    & Barbeau, E

    Cauchoix, M., Barragan-Jason, G., Serre, T. & Barbeau, E. J. The neural dynam- ics of face detection in the wild revealed by mvpa.Journal of Neuroscience34, 846–854 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    L., Singh, S

    Hermann, K. L., Singh, S. R., Rosenthal, I. A., Pantazis, D. & Conway, B. R. Temporal dynamics of the neural representation of hue and luminance polarity. Nature Communications13, 661 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Vaswani, A.et al.Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    & Oostenveld, R

    Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of eeg-and meg-data. Journal of neuroscience methods164, 177–190 (2007). 25 T able 3: Mean AUC and 95% confidence intervals for sentence sentiment and response type contrasting condition classification across differe...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.